Santiago Pericas-Geertsen

> On Jul 9, 2018, at 1:23 PM, Arjan Tijms wrote: > > I wasn’t part of that EG. Yes, CDI was coming but also recall that JAX-RS always supported...

> On Jul 15, 2018, at 2:46 AM, Christian Kaltepoth wrote: > > We could strengthen this in the spec, but is it really worth adding more implementation complexity? I...

I understand Markus' point. However, this RFC has been around for 3 years and there is very good support for it. Given it's rather narrow scope, I don't see a...

Seems reasonable to me +1

My take on this is that our API should _not_ get into the business of imposing these type of restrictions (especially since if you start, it is unclear to me...

In complete agreement with @chkal

> Just for the records, this is what JAX-RS 2.1 spec currently says about JAXB: > > _The pre-packaged JAXB and the pre-packaged primitive type MessageBodyReader implementations MUST throw a...

> > > Just for the records, this is what JAX-RS 2.1 spec currently says about JAXB: > > > _The pre-packaged JAXB and the pre-packaged primitive type MessageBodyReader implementations...

+1 I think the pros outweigh the cons.

First, I agree that the Javadocs can be improved. Having said that, I think the original intent of this API was to separate _queueing_ from _network delivery_ --much like you...